Guest EXPAT Posted May 5, 2012 Posted May 5, 2012 This was a Funny or Die video that premiered on Bill Maher's HBO show last night. Seems like it is right on the money for what ever reason the GOP feels the need to focus on this. . . http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/6t29 Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted May 6, 2012 Posted May 6, 2012 Well I think these three ladies went too far.. Steve Jobs and Apple was possible because his mom chose to have him at a very challenging time in her life. Steve Jobs' adoptive parents were also great and kind enough to do difficult things for his education. Love and compassion help us move forward and achieve great things. New skills and technologies were possible because of someone else's children hard at work. I don't want that possibility to be destroyed. I think Children are blessing. I would like to have my own if I could. I am not saying that woman should not have a choice. They should. But killing those fetus who can't defend themselves, I don't think it's right. I am willing to adopt one. This was a Funny or Die video that premiered on Bill Maher's HBO show last night. Seems like it is right on the money for what ever reason the GOP feels the need to focus on this. . . http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/6t29 Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted May 6, 2012 Posted May 6, 2012 I think the person who made this vid missed the point. It's not about putting G in their V. It's about protecting a life that can't defend oneself. It's not something that can be handled lightly as the vid implies. IMHO. Quote
Members JKane Posted May 6, 2012 Members Posted May 6, 2012 First, it's not a life if it can not live independently of the organism which doesn't wish to host it. Second, the fucktard Republicans trying to force all these babies to be born, it's their typical hypocrisy on the most grand and self-evident scale yet: Possibility one: The family doesn't feel they can afford the baby. NO, the republicans say, this baby MUST be born even though it will further impoverish your family... then they take a breath and decry welfare mothers, social assistance, etc... Possibility two: There is no family, the mother is not in love with the father (or worse). DOESN'T MATTER, the republicans scream, it must live, even to be born into an unloving home or an orphanage is far preferable, because we say so! Then they take a breath and decry gays as unfit parents and a horrible danger to families. Possibility three: The baby appears to have a significant problem which may endanger the mother's life, may prevent it from being able to survive birth without extraordinary measures, and is likely to be a massive and lifelong burden on the family. This is where the republicans are at their most foul. This baby must be born, "partial birth abortion" is satan himself reaching into that womb! But the profit-driven insurance they insist on isn't going to pick up all the costs, societal programs to help or even institutionalize the child if needed *they've* gutted. And of course the cherry on the top is their assumption that if one of theirs needs one of these procedures they'll simply always have the ability to fly somewhere and get it taken care of. Quote
Members MsGuy Posted May 6, 2012 Members Posted May 6, 2012 Or possibility four: girl friend gets pissed off with the father, so she aborts his baby to hack him off. ...it's not a life if it can not live independently of the organism which doesn't wish to host it. If it's a question of ability to live independently, why is it murder to leave a newborn in a dumpster? Extra credit: Is a dead dumpster baby still murder if she can't afford to raise it, doesn't love (or worse) the father, and the kid has a birth defect? Quote
Members JKane Posted May 7, 2012 Members Posted May 7, 2012 Or possibility four: girl friend gets pissed off with the father, so she aborts his baby to hack him off. You'd really rather the baby had her for a mother? Late term abortions are had out of tragic medical necessity, not on a whim or for spite. If it's a question of ability to live independently, why is it murder to leave a newborn in a dumpster? I didn't say without assistance. Without extraordinary measures is a good benchmark. This BS about helping a fertilized egg not implant (as happens naturally very often anyway) being murder is insane. Extra credit: Is a dead dumpster baby still murder if she can't afford to raise it, doesn't love (or worse) the father, and the kid has a birth defect? Still murder, yes, absolutely. Though one good point is that the mother won't get pregnant again in prison! Here's an idea, how about giving that mother as much and as free access to contraception as possible in the first place? How the fuck can "the right" justify cutting this, not to mention sex education...??? Then we can work on making sure she has plenty of pre-natal care options, including the tests which reveal defects as early as possible, and if she--in consultation with her doctor and family chooses to terminate they have reasonably local access to what is needed instead of having to hop on a plane to Canada/Europe (like everybody of means will always keep as an option) or resorting to a coathanger/etc just like before Roe vs. Wade? Quote
Guest EXPAT Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 I still for the life of me can't understand why women would vote for anyone in the GOP given their views on women. I'm not just talking about abortion control but literally everything else regarding the control of reproductive rights. Why do they focus so much on it? Or is it just the media who make it a point? In any event it shouldn't be that way. Women should all vote for Obama in droves. . . Quote
Members MsGuy Posted May 7, 2012 Members Posted May 7, 2012 The underlying problem is that there is exists no bright, clear line between abortion and infanticide. People formulate all kinds of verbal receipes to avoid dealing with that fact but whatever line you choose to draw dissolves upon close inpection. The hard fact is that there is no natural or scientific difference between the two. Factually abortion = infanticide. Fortunately, there may be a social line: It's whatever a sufficient majority of the population finds tolerable, sufficient meaning large enough to reduce dissenters to the political fringes. ---- My real intent in replying to your post was to get you to look at what your post might look like to someone coming from a different point on the abortion spectrum. I don't think it advances the construction of that social line (whatever it may be) to attack others as fucktard, hypocritical idiots. Just saying... Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 MsGuy to the Supreme Court! The underlying problem is that there is exists no bright, clear line between abortion and infanticide. People formulate all kinds of verbal receipes to avoid dealing with that fact but whatever line you choose to draw dissolves upon close inpection. The hard fact is that there is no natural or scientific difference between the two. Factually abortion = infanticide. Fortunately, there may be a social line: It's whatever a sufficient majority of the population finds tolerable, sufficient meaning large enough to reduce dissenters to the political fringes. ---- My real intent in replying to your post was to get you to look at what your post might look like to someone coming from a different point on the abortion spectrum. I don't think it advances the construction of that social line (whatever it may be) to attack others as fucktard, hypocritical idiots. Just saying... Quote
Members MsGuy Posted May 8, 2012 Members Posted May 8, 2012 Thank you for your confidence in me, Hito, but I think I would settle for winning Oz's posting contest. Quote
Members JKane Posted May 8, 2012 Members Posted May 8, 2012 The underlying problem is that there is exists no bright, clear line between abortion and infanticide. People formulate all kinds of verbal receipes to avoid dealing with that fact but whatever line you choose to draw dissolves upon close inpection. The hard fact is that there is no natural or scientific difference between the two. Factually abortion = infanticide. Fortunately, there may be a social line: It's whatever a sufficient majority of the population finds tolerable, sufficient meaning large enough to reduce dissenters to the political fringes. ---- My real intent in replying to your post was to get you to look at what your post might look like to someone coming from a different point on the abortion spectrum. I don't think it advances the construction of that social line (whatever it may be) to attack others as fucktard, hypocritical idiots. Just saying... I appreciate these points and the chance to re-examine my views. I wish to emphasize I was calling nobody here a fucktard--just the hypocritical idiots of the Republican party! ;o) I've suggested a line, though the edge is blurred by medical science and the fact that medically viable babies can be born with detectable lifetime deformities of the mind or body. But again, there's the hypocrisy--if it's better for those babies to be born than be aborted, why do *the exact same* lawmakers cut family assistance up to institutionalization (where necessary) *every chance they get*? How's this for a litmus test: a fetus becomes a baby the moment a "pro-life" lawmaker is willing/able to adopt it and pay all expenses? Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted May 8, 2012 Posted May 8, 2012 I will say a prayer for you every night before I go to bed then... Thank you for your confidence in me, Hito, but I think I would settle for winning Oz's posting contest. Quote
